Leaderboard

But seriously, it's like you think we don't already have laws against terrorism offences. When she comes back she'll face justice for any offences committed; the justice that's dictated by UK law not made up on the spot when the public particularly dislike a suspect.. Get over yourselves and quit the mob justice mentality; let the courts deal with crimes.

Aha! I think I've pieced together a possible hand for West: ♠ KJ ♥ AKQJxx ♦ AKQ ♣ AK South asks West to lead a trump. South plays out all the trumps, demanding that West discard ♦AKQ. South then cashes all the diamond tricks, demanding that West discard ♥AKQJx. He then cashes three hearts for 13 tricks! [edit] And a possible auction. West opens 6NT, and immediately tables his hand, without waiting for three passes, knowing that aside from a terrible heart split the contract is cold. South then says "not so fast, matey!!" and bids 7♠, requiring all West's cards to be penalty cards. Then the play proceeds as I have described...

Mr Rat: For the 1h-2d-2s-3s auction, most expert 2/1 players have adopted 3nt after this auction as a mark time bid, either showing extra values and strong slam interest (serious 3nt) or denying them (frivolous 3nt). They do a similar thing when hearts are trump, some retaining 3nt as the artificial strength delimiter, with a 3s cue being ambiguous, while others making things more symmetric by having 3s be serious/frivolous and 3nt being a cue for spades. If partner denies strong slam interest you just sign off in game without extras yourself. After 3M major agreement, one only bypasses cue bidding and the non-serious 3nt or cue bids with the worst hands. Most bidding theorists think 1h-2d-2s-4s played as fast arrival is inferior. They prefer to play such sequences as good diamonds and spades, no control in the other suits. The problem with fast arrival is partner is still unlimited, and you've erased your cue bidding room quite often, which kind of defeats the purpose of playing 2/1 in the first place. As for other auctions for high reverse like 1h-2d-3c, although there are some who prefer it only shows shape and not extra strength, I personally don't think this is very playable in a wide range opening system. On this auction there is less room than in the reverse to 2s, and no serious/non-serious 3nt to disambiguate strength ranges since one has to be able to bid 3nt to play. So I think this auction is prone to missing slams when both partners have extras, but not quite enough to raise 3nt to 4nt or justify pulling 3nt to show minor fit and slam try. I play that these auctions still show extras in my partnerships.

North needs to bid 3NT rather than doubling.

I haven't answered the poll but I will comment. I am a white male married to a white female but if I were married to a black female and we decided to go to a party, me in blackface and her in whiteface, surely it would be some sort of sendup of something. The fact is that I wouldn't do it. But if I did, it would be some perhaps lame attempt to ridicule those who use blackface thinking that it's clever or whatever it is that they think.. Intent matters, although probably even with the best of intent a person should think at least twice. I looked up a NYT article that discussed the Fred Astaire tribute to Bojangles in Swing Time. Indeed they saw it as a tribute, and I see it that way too, but still I wouldn't do it. As a child I saw various Charlie Chan movies featuring Warner Roland . Go figure. But at least he was portrayed as a smart investigator. He has his number 1 son and his number 2 son, and I am pretty sure that in at least some episodes he had a black chauffeur or something like that. These portrayals were not so favorable, especially the black role. Maybe I am just making this up, but I recall being offended even as an 9 year old. Anyway, anyone with half a brain can see why such things are offensive. And if that isn't reason enough, surely it won't do your career any good.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt32h432d764cq3&n=s654ht652djt532c42]133|200[/hv] North-South can make Seven Spades. It is normal bridge and the opponents do not defend misère. The contract cannot be beaten and East does not have any penalty cards. What is the exact layout of the opponents' cards and what must have happened during the auction?

This fits in well with my hypothesis that Individual-1 hates Obama so much he will do virtually anything to discredit him - including trying to win a Nobel Prize - like Obama did. (my emphasis)

My opinion is that there is no consensus. Many advocate, showing shape doesn't promise extra and that is how I was taught, right here on BBO. Historically, Lawrence style has advocated that reverses show extra. Some try to find a middle ground and some have created some impressive schemes to embrace both. It really is a matter of partnership agreement and style, no right or wrong outside of that. In the auction you gave, I play bidding suits outside of trump, after a game force is set and trumps are set, show 1st or 2nd round control and are simply cooperating with responders desire to explore for slam below game. They do not show anything extra that what we originally promised. In this situation, bidding 4♠ simply says I have no useful outside controls to show.

How about we don't make an exception to our country's fundamental rights of citizenship for a literal teenager. We have far more awful criminals abounding in prisons; we don't deport them. Why so keen to change the law for someone who as far as we know has never killed anyone, when you don't make a fuss about domestic criminals? I'm going to guess at answer to that - it's because you think of her, in your mind, as alien and thus not deserving of rights.

Reasonable, probably full of old racist white men, but 10K of them ?

If such a simple problem does not have a simple ruling then the law is seriously flawed.

Quite. I choose rule of law over rule of populist petition.

It is completely illegal under international law to ban her return and strip her citizenship (you can't make somebody stateless and she has no other country). Also however much you dislike the fact, her baby is British in law and will have rights. By all means lock her up when she gets here and try her incourt, but she has to be allowed to come back. We don't however have to bust a gut to help her return.

I think nearly everyone does not consider this example hand even close to "too strong for a weak 2". Nearly everyone buys into the concept of that there is no gap between weak 2 openers and 1 openers; that is with a good suit there is no hand that is too strong for 2 but not good enough for 1. You open one or the other. The only time you might pass is with poor suit relative to vul and position, and maybe because holding side 4-cd major One might choose not to open a weak 2 based on the number of flaws in the hand. Possible flaws include: very bad main suit, low "ODR". Bad main suits are susceptible to large penalties. Especially bad when holding defensive tricks outside which might make it a phantom sac.holding side 4 cd major. Preempting may cause you to miss good contract in that major. Also decreases chance opps have game in that majorunfavorable vulnerability. Higher risk of penalty being more than their game, and getting -200 at MP.being in 2nd seat. Less incentive to preempt in 2nd seat because partner might have good hand and less chance opps have game since one already passed.Most players these days tend to open pretty freely, as they think giving the opponents problems very frequently wins more net points than the occasional self-own when opening flawed preempts, and are willing to shrug off the bad boards. More disciplined preempts, partner can sac more accurately, but you don't disrupt the opponents as often.

Yes I noticed that; unless my call changes the declarer, when there would be lead restrictions. The main worry is that North would bid 6D, and I would clearly lead a top club against that, and now have to find the heart ruff to beat it 3 for 800 - so that is worse than the 850 I had! I am unsure whether I would allow the run after the redouble and would poll.

The problem is that you seem to be trying to derive things from first principles, when it’s mostly about history. Some more examples: Comparing Obama to a monkey was racist but comparing Trump to a monkey was not. Why? Long history in the US of comparing black people to monkeys to dehumanize them and justify slavery. Dressing up in white robes and hood? Racist because people have historicallly donned this outfit and gone out to terrorize minorities. Blackface for white folks? Racist, because people have historically done this as a way to mock and belittle blacks. It is of course possible to be oblivious to this history. Some people in Zürich like to dress up as native Americans for parades. To Americans this seems like a racist example of cultural appropriation because there’s some history in the US of white folks dressing up like this and acting out to emphasize how “savage” or “violent” the natives supposedly are. But the Swiss don’t have this history and don’t mean it this way — there are also people wearing Lederhosen in the same parade and there’s no malicious intent. No Nazi uniforms though — they’d be just as horrified to see that as any American, if not more so. The point is that these things are very dependent on history and to some degree intent. Dressing up as a black celebrity is fine. Painting your face black is racist because of history. That’s not to say that everyone knows this or intends it that way.

One of the big differences is that in first, you said that they were wearing makeup to change skin color, and in the second, you said "dressed", which to me implies just wore clothes. If that's what you meant, one of your options on the third poll would be about the use of makeup, because that's literally "blackface". I also am not sure of your purpose of the poll. Are you trying to get a definitive answer, or just the temperature of the water cooler? I didn't answer your poll, but if it's not clear what my opinion is, I'm going to quote Winstonm in the APTT:

I don't see any of it as racist, blackface to me is offensive when it's a general caricature rather than an attempt to look like a particular black person.

You're polling a bunch of old white people to get their opinion about blackface???